- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1483 CRL.P No. 101440 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101440 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH S/O. VEERAYYA GADAGIMATH AGED 66 YEARS, OCC. RTD. GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: ANAND S/O. ISHWARAPPA ARMANI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. CHIEF MINISTERIAL OFFICER, PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, R/O. BEHIND AMRUT TALKIES, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO SOLE RESPONDENT- SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2022 IN PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.1988/2022 (NOW CONVERTED TO C.C.NO. 3437/2023) PASSED BY THE I ADDL. ACJ AND JMFC HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-K TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 193, 196, 471 OF IPC AS NULL AND VOID IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.29 15:27:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1483 CRL.P No. 101440 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. A suit in O.S. No. 7/2010 was filed seeking a mandatory injunction to remove the encroached portion. The plaintiff produced Exhibit P3 (Annexure-C) to demonstrate the existence of properties bearing CTS Nos. 1965 and 1966, claiming ownership of a portion of the said properties, which were allegedly encroached upon by the defendants. The defendants relied on Exhibit D5 (Annexure-E), purportedly showing that the said properties were no longer in existence and had been utilized for the formation of a road. Based on Exhibit D5, the suit was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that Exhibit D5 was fabricated by the petitioner and that the defendants, in collusion with city survey officials, fraudulently procured the dismissal of the suit. The trial court, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, directed the Chief Ministerial Officer to file a complaint for offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, and 471 of the IPC. Upon the complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of these offences. 3. Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Exhibit D5 was issued following an inspection and that the said properties were utilized for the formation of a road, as evidenced by the City Survey Extract, which indicates that the properties no longer exist. In the absence of any material substantiating the allegation that the petitioner colluded with others to fabricate the document, taking cognizance of the offences is impermissible. 4. The respondent, despite being served with notice, did not appear either in person or through counsel and was placed ex parte. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1483 CRL.P No. 101440 of 2023 5. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the City Survey Extract issued by the City Survey Office, which indicates that CTS Nos. 1965 and 1966, claimed by the plaintiff, were acquired for the purpose of road formation. The trial court, after considering Exhibits D5 and P3, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the properties and that there was no encroachment. The dismissal of the suit has attained finality. 6. Section 192 of the IPC defines “fabricating false evidence” as causing circumstances to exist or making false entries in any book, record, or electronic record, or creating a document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstances, entries, or statements may appear as evidence in judicial or official proceedings and cause an erroneous opinion on a material point in such proceedings. 7. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner created Exhibit D5 for use as evidence in court. The petitioner issued Exhibit D5 based on available records and without any intention of using it in judicial proceedings. Therefore, the essential ingredients to constitute the offences alleged are absent. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 3437/2023, pending before the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53